Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. et al, No. 1:2017cv00589 - Document 764 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: granted 486 MOTION in Limine No. 11 to Exclude Evidence, Testimony or Agrument Concerning the Parallel California State Court Proceedings. filed by MDSOL Europe Limited, Medidata Solutions, Inc. For the reaso ns set forth below, the motion is granted. Medidata MIL 11 is granted. At trial, the parties shall not introduce evidence or argument regarding the California litigation. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 486. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/24/2022) (tg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. et al Doc. 764 Case 1:17-cv-00589-LGS-RWL Document 764 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al., : Plaintiffs, : : -against: : VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC., : Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------------ X 17 Civ. 589 (LGS) OPINION & ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: Medidata moves in limine to preclude evidence and argument relating to a parallel case between the parties in California (“Medidata MIL 11”). Veeva opposes. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. In July 2017, Veeva filed suit against Medidata and two other defendants in California state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Medidata’s agreements with several employees accused of trade secret misappropriation in this case are unlawful because they contain noncompetition provisions that violate California law. The complaint in that case also notes in passing that those employment agreements impose broad confidentiality obligations. The lawsuit is ongoing. Medidata originally brought counts for tortious interference, unfair competition, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The Court’s summary judgment opinion held that those causes of action were preempted under California law, leaving only the trade secret misappropriation claims. The parties do not dispute that the California action is not relevant to the claims of trade secret misappropriation. Introducing evidence of that lawsuit also runs a high risk of jury confusion. See, e.g., Sharkey v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 10 Civ. 3824, 2017 WL 374735, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2017) (“Any probative value would be far outweighed by the risk of confusion and prejudice by introducing settlements and consent orders Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:17-cv-00589-LGS-RWL Document 764 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 2 from other unrelated cases.”). Medidata MIL 11 is granted. At trial, the parties shall not introduce evidence or argument regarding the California litigation. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 486. Dated: February 24, 2022 New York, New York 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
